|
The uncertainty of program possible changes in makes me very anxious.
I'm exactly at the middle of achieving EXP this year, however I wold prefer to qualify for EXP early 2016, because then the status would last for two full years and I'm at the middle now anyway (so doesn't make much difference financially). But how can I book my flights for Jan/Feb 2016 if I'm not sure what will be the qualification requirements? Maybe they take away some of the bonuses (SWUs for all classes, double RDM accural, etc.) and I seem not to be so interested in the EXP status anymore? What if they change EQM accrual for cheapest classes? Then my Jan/Feb MR would go down the drain so to say. Should I try to requalify this year or risk and book something for early next year? If I book my flights too close to departure date my chances of applying SWUs diminishes noticeably. |
Originally Posted by TokinaMaso
(Post 25448516)
The uncertainty of program possible changes in makes me very anxious.
I'm exactly at the middle of achieving EXP this year, however I wold prefer to qualify for EXP early 2016, because then the status would last for two full years and I'm at the middle now anyway (so doesn't make much difference financially). But how can I book my flights for Jan/Feb 2016 if I'm not sure what will be the qualification requirements? Maybe they take away some of the bonuses (SWUs for all classes, double RDM accural, etc.) and I seem not to be so interested in the EXP status anymore? What if they change EQM accrual for cheapest classes? Then my Jan/Feb MR would go down the drain so to say. Should I try to requalify this year or risk and book something for early next year? If I book my flights too close to departure date my chances of applying SWUs diminishes noticeably. Unless you meant, you were going to fly 100k miles worth of flights in Jan & Feb 2016. |
Originally Posted by skit53
(Post 25448758)
I may be wrong, but I thought qualifying for status is based on the calendar year.
Unless you meant, you were going to fly 100k miles worth of flights in Jan & Feb 2016. |
From a status earning standpoint, the easiest (and most effective IMO) thing that AA can do is eliminate EQMs as a qualifying measure. They already have EQPs, which I think works very well as it awards more points for higher fare tickets, and fewer points for the cheapest tickets. I would also keep the extra premium for the highest fare classes that AA has brought in this year (Y, J, A etc.)
I would keep the EQS qualification requirement as-is. Even if someone were to buy the cheapest $200 roundtrip fares, over 60 round trips (120 segments) that adds up to $12,000. Now sure there might be the opportunity to buy multiple stop routings, but I'd hypothesize that the number of people trying to game the system that way while maintaining extremely low spend would be few. ---------- From an RDM earning standpoint, my belief is that AA has to change to a revenue based model, similar to UA and DL. When a 40 minute hop within the mid west on a last minute $1,000 roundtrip fare earns only 2000 RDMs while an advanced purchase $250 roundtrip to the west coast earns 7000 RDMs, you know something must be wrong with the incentive mechanism. If AA didn't address this, I could see a lot of high spend business travelers moving to UA or DL. I don't think the extra bonus miles quite cut it. |
Originally Posted by arlflyer
(Post 25293559)
So I have a question that I have always been meaning to ask, and since the discussion is heading in this direction, I figure this is a decent place to ask it.
Whenever people talk of devaluation, they always immediately bring up the partner awards. The line of reasoning being that because the partners go to places that are far away, and because they provide a better product, they are comparatively underpriced and thus would be hit first with any devaluation. However, what I never hear discussed is how said partners actually get compensated. At the simplest level, the partners must get compensated in some regard; that much is obvious. Is that through cash payment, miles, reciprocal seat availability, what? Whatever the means of payment is, though, would it not be the partner, not AA, that would be the initiator with respect to any increase in that payment? I mean, think about it, what would be AA's motivation to just walk up to CX and say "We feel that we need to start giving you 50% more [cash/points/reciprocity/whatever] for the same seats"? In fact, wouldn't it be in AA's benefit to keep partner awards priced artificially low in this high-load-factor environment? Wouldn't that be the win-win for AA? Its flyers are happy - good awards on great products - and AA gets more seats to sell for revenue. So what I am saying then, is - what is the incentive for AA to initiate, unprovoked, a devaluation of partner awards? Folks in the know, please enlighten me, because, as I mentioned, the actual mechanism of partner compensation is something I've never seen discussed. |
Originally Posted by arlflyer
(Post 25293559)
So I have a question that I have always been meaning to ask, and since the discussion is heading in this direction, I figure this is a decent place to ask it.
Whenever people talk of devaluation, they always immediately bring up the partner awards. The line of reasoning being that because the partners go to places that are far away, and because they provide a better product, they are comparatively underpriced and thus would be hit first with any devaluation. However, what I never hear discussed is how said partners actually get compensated. At the simplest level, the partners must get compensated in some regard; that much is obvious. Is that through cash payment, miles, reciprocal seat availability, what? Whatever the means of payment is, though, would it not be the partner, not AA, that would be the initiator with respect to any increase in that payment? I mean, think about it, what would be AA's motivation to just walk up to CX and say "We feel that we need to start giving you 50% more [cash/points/reciprocity/whatever] for the same seats"? In fact, wouldn't it be in AA's benefit to keep partner awards priced artificially low in this high-load-factor environment? Wouldn't that be the win-win for AA? Its flyers are happy - good awards on great products - and AA gets more seats to sell for revenue. So what I am saying then, is - what is the incentive for AA to initiate, unprovoked, a devaluation of partner awards? Folks in the know, please enlighten me, because, as I mentioned, the actual mechanism of partner compensation is something I've never seen discussed. |
Originally Posted by Astronomer
(Post 25450199)
From an RDM earning standpoint, my belief is that AA has to change to a revenue based model, similar to UA and DL. When a 40 minute hop within the mid west on a last minute $1,000 roundtrip fare earns only 2000 RDMs while an advanced purchase $250 roundtrip to the west coast earns 7000 RDMs, you know something must be wrong with the incentive mechanism. If AA didn't address this, I could see a lot of high spend business travelers moving to UA or DL. I don't think the extra bonus miles quite cut it.
|
Originally Posted by Austin787
(Post 25457996)
The easiest solution is to use EQPs exclusively, for determining elite status and perhaps awarding 1 mile per EQP. First, business, and full fare economy (such as the $1000 example) earn 1.5 EQP while discount economy only earns .5 EQP. EQPs already rewards higher spenders.
|
Originally Posted by Austin787
(Post 25457996)
The easiest solution is to use EQPs exclusively, for determining elite status and perhaps awarding 1 mile per EQP. First, business, and full fare economy (such as the $1000 example) earn 1.5 EQP while discount economy only earns .5 EQP. EQPs already rewards higher spenders.
|
Originally Posted by JonNYC
(Post 25458284)
Some version thereof sounds reasonable to me.
44,952 EQP 70,381 EMQ 95 segments I am curmudgeonly plotting my way to exactly 123 segments. Would I therefore be a 123 segment Platinum :eek::(:mad:? |
Originally Posted by onesocalkid
(Post 25458412)
I hope that there is some form of middle ground because in that formula, I have little value to AA:
44,952 EQP 70,381 EMQ 95 segments |
Originally Posted by JonNYC
(Post 25458458)
Well, just playing devil's advocate; the "value you'd have to AA" would be AAdvantage Platinum under such a change.
LOL. |
Originally Posted by Austin787
(Post 25457996)
The easiest solution is to use EQPs exclusively, for determining elite status and perhaps awarding 1 mile per EQP. First, business, and full fare economy (such as the $1000 example) earn 1.5 EQP while discount economy only earns .5 EQP. EQPs already rewards higher spenders.
What I also said was that from an RDM (award miles) perspective, they need to change things a bit because award miles earned today don't really account for high spend vs. low spend. That was the $1,000 example I was referring to. |
To me....something is up....look at the challenges being pulled after 9/23
My theory is that status calculation will evolve come 1/1/16.
Why are all challenges being stopped as of 9/23? Anyone who signs up by 9/23 will end their challenge in the current year. If there were changes in pts earning come 1/1/16, and let's say F became 3, J 3, y and b 1.5, H and M 1.25, L and V and G 1, q and n .5, s, and o .25 (all guesses) then they would have an issue with people on current challenges for flights in the new year. So they are ending challenges before the EQP tables change on 1/1/16. I am in all favor of moving status qualification to EQPs only and weeding out the number of elites. Or, maybe just going back to EQP qualification only on pts. But, given how dare buckets have evolved over the years, just saying QSONG is .5, is old thinking and percentage of points awarded by bucket need to evolve. Edit: other predictions: - EP earns 2x bonus - Plat moves to 1.5 or 1.75x bonus - Gold stays at 1.25x bonus - still mileage based on the earn side - partner awards start rising to eventually match AA metal level 1 A-Anytime on the burn side - AA sticks with current saver and AAnytime for AA metal since they have effectively (or can) devalue by limiting saver seats -- and when needed (think economy tanks again) drop in more saver seats to fill seats. Net: AAnytime is the new basis on the burn side and both AA and partners would again be matched. - SWUs stay a benefit for EPs but maybe the program is modified to be more like UA and DL With true system wide and regionals. - |
Originally Posted by craz
(Post 25458026)
I wonder who hardly flys on discount economy?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:07 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.